This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a reinstatement application by the Labour and Industrial Courts. The High Court, upholding the lower courts' findings that the resignation was duly proved and accepted within the statutory timeline, dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.347 OF 2008
Shri Namdeo Pandurang Patil
...Petitioner
vs.
Gold Mohur Mills & Anr....Respondents
Ms Shobhana Gopal for the petitioner
Mr.Avinash Jaisatgi for the respondent
Mr.P.M.Palsikar,A.G.P. for State.
CORAM: A.S.OKA,J.
DATE : APRIL 1,2008
P.C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. The petitioner
filed an application under section 78 and 79 read with section
42 of Bombay Industrial Relations Act,1946. The case of the
Petitioner was that the he was employed in Weaving Department
of the first Respondent-Mill with effect from 20th June 1978.
There was a strike in the entire textile mill industry in the
year 1981. According to him, he did not participate in the
strike. According to his case, when he tried to report for
work, he was not allowed the entry by the police. Even
according to the case of the Petitioner, before the closure of
the strike, the mill was closed and the mill was taken over in
the year 1983 by the National Textile Corporation.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that two months thereafter,
he tried to report for work at the gate and was told to come
- 2 -
after two days but still the company was closed. According to
the case of the Petitioner, he never received any
communication from the first Respondent. A letter of
termination of the employment was never served to the
Petitioner. His case is that the workers junior to him were
taken in the employment in phase wise manner after reopening
of the mills. The contention of the Petitioner was that he
was not served with the notice of termination or show cause
notice or charge sheet. According to him an Approach letter
was served by him on 10th April 1997. Therefore, a prayer was
made for direction to the first Respondent to reinstate him in
service and to pay wages from the year 1982 onwards.
3. Written statement was filed by the first Respondent. The
first Respondent admitted that the letter of approach dated
10th April 1987 was served. However, the contention is that
the alleged approach letter does not satisfy the requirement
of section 42 (4) of the said Act read with Rule 53 of the
Rules framed under the said Act of 1946.It was pointed out
that the Petitioner had not reported on duty from 18th January
1982 and had approached the court after 17 years. It was
submitted that the approach letter dated 10th April 1987 is
obviously barred by time. It was submitted that as the
Petitioner did not report to work from 18th January 1982, his
services came to an end.
- 3 -
4. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, Mumbai dismissed
the application. The learned Judge held that the resignation
dated 29th May 1986 submitted by the Petitioner has been duly
proved and the documentary evidence on record shows that after
the resignation, the Petitioner has accepted his provident
fund and other dues. The learned Judge also held that as a
result of the resignation tendered in the year 1986, no cause
of action arose in the year 1997 to send approach Notice. The
learned Judge also held that there is no evidence on record to
show that the Petitioner was continuously reporting duty till
the year 1997. In an Appeal preferred by the Petitioner, the
President of the Industrial Court has confirmed the Judgment
and Order dated 7th March 2008.
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
resignation letter has not been proved and what has been
proved is only the signature on the alleged letter of
resignation. She submitted that the Petitioner was illiterate
person and unless the contents of the resignation letter are
proved, the same cannot be relied upon as the letter of
resignation. Inviting my attention to the deposition of the
witness Mr.Popat Pawar, she submitted that the said witness
could not identify the signature of the petitioner on the
receipt/acknowlegement of payment of provident fund in the
year 1986. She submitted that the courts below have committed
an error by holding that the petitioner has tendered a
- 4 -
resignation and has thereafter accepted his dues.
6. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioner and after perusal of the notes of evidence
and impugned Judgments and order, I find that no case is made
out for interference under Article 226 of Constitution of
India. The Courts below have found that the signature on the
letter of resignation dated 29th May 1986 has been duly
proved. The Petitioner was confronted by showing the
resignation letter in his cross examination and signature on
the resignation letter has been admitted. The witness
examined by the first Respondent Shri Popat Pawar may not have
identified the signature of the Petitioner but the said
witness has produced the original receipt along with concerned
page from the register maintained showing the disbursement of
the amount of the provident fund. Not only the receipt, but
the entry in the register maintained in regular course of
business shows that the Petitioner had received the provident
fund amount.
7. Considering the fact that the findings records by the
courts below are based on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, no interference is called for in the
petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. No
perversity is shown. There is no merit in the Petition and
the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- 5 -
JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the findings of fact of the courts below regarding the proof of resignation.
Whether the petitioner's application under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act provides an effective remedy.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Namdeo Pandurang Patil
Gold Mohur Mills and another
A.S. Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court